Sure there was that minor incident with the Hindenburg...
In which most of the passengers and crew survived, unlike most airplane crashes.
...but if we are dealing with a cargo ship servicing remote locations (which seems like the best application anyway) the risks to the humanity are much less.
If there's going to be a crash landing, I'd much rather be on board a hydrogen airship than a 747. It's far safer in a crash.
Yes, I know, hydrogen is flammable. I also know the wings of an aircraft are filled with flammable liquid that also often burns during a crash. History would suggest that the jet fuel is more likely to end up burning in an aircraft crash than the hydrogen in an airship (there were many airship crashes, but only one that went up in flames spectacularly).
Incidentally, the most fatal airship disaster was the crash of the USS Akron, which was filled with helium, but went down over the ocean during a bad storm.
...how do you connect the beams on the bottom to the lifting point on the top.
You don't. You connect steel cables or whatever to the beams on the bottom, connected on the other end to the airship, preferably not all at one point. You don't want the structure to tilt the way you would with a faster aircraft, since it isn't necessary and indeed would be dangerous if you're lifting from the bottom. You instead keep it vertical and move slowly, a task that airships are perfect for.
Then the intelligent person will re-read my message and note that I'd already mentioned that.
Actually, they will note that you didn't, but instead continued to assert that there needs to be some lifting point on the top. If you insist that must be the case, then that's the point you should be arguing. As it is, you look like you didn't even bother to read what you were replying to, or stop and think about what they were saying. You might want to try that sometime. At the very least, it will ensure you're arguing with someone rather than past them in apparent blissful ignorance of what they meant.
I know the pain. My employer provided me with a Dell laptop that had a 1600x1200 resolution once. A couple years later, they were buying new laptops for everyone and were very surprised when I simply refused to give mine up. They told me I could pick anything I wanted within reason (most employees had to pick from two approved choices), but I couldn't find anything half as good that didn't cost five times as much. Losing that laptop was the saddest part of quitting... *sigh*
OTOH, it looks to me as though this is more because HDTV based monitors are really cheap, not because the other monitors are expensive. I remember 1600x1200 monitors costing a lot of money back when they were considered high-end. Now you can get a 1920x1200 monitor for between $300 and $500 depending on size, and there are 2560x1440 monitors available for under $1000. What's really new is that you can get a 1920x1080 monitor for under $200.
Well, no, what's really new is that the top end hasn't come down, like it did on all my previous monitor purchases. I've always bought a monitor in the $550-$750 range. It's just, each time I've done so, it's been a substantial upgrade from my previous, years old monitor in terms of resolution. However, my current monitor is over four years old, but if I buy a replacement today, for the first time since I've started using computers in 1982, the monitor I buy today for that price will not be a substantial upgrade, indeed arguably it wouldn't be an upgrade at all, but a downgrade -- I'd gain horizontal but lose vertical pixels, which I value more highly. I understand it's got a lot better for people buying low-end monitors, but the real change is that the progression on the high end has halted, indeed arguably it's backslid some if you value vertical pixels.
sig [sic]: Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Violence is also the best, by which I mean safest and most effective, response of the unjustly attacked. Now, when and if you can cobble up a world when thugs won't put a knife to the throat of my lady for her purse or her favors, you might have a point. Otherwise, you're just babbling.
Actually, he's quoting. Specifically, he's quoting Salvor Hardin, fictional mayor of Terminus in Isaac Asimov's Foundation.
As for the unjustly attacked, a violent response is usually ineffective. The people doing the attacking usually have violence on their side (e.g. the woman in question is unlikely to keep her purse or her favors, even if she fights back, as her attacker is going to be far more proficient at using violence as a weapon than she is), or are often unaffected by it (a group whose members are expected to die in their attacks anyhow are unsurprisingly not deterred if you kill some of their members -- "oh noes, that wasn't in the plan! Oh wait, it was... thank you for giving us exactly what we wanted." Yes, that's so effective.)
Violence can be a very effective tool. But it is rarely the safest and usually not the most effective.
Don't you think that if a state-sponsored agency wrote and deployed the virus, the QA/QC would remove ego-driven references?
I like to imagine governments would do all kinds of things that would make sense. Alas, I don't live in the imaginary world where they actually succeed at it all the time.
A basement hacker has an ego, a state-sponsored team of programmers have a task.
I'm gonna venture a guess that you've never worked for the government. XD Ego-driven behavior tends to be more common there than in corporations, at least in my experience.
Bits in code aren't like pollen or clay that get accidentally stuck to the culprit's clothing and shoes.
Actually, it kinda is, although you have it backwards -- what often happens is bits of info regarding the environment in which the code was developed get accidentally stuck in the code.
Whoever created this attack had the ability to effectively frame someone. They could've made it look like anyone – Israel, the US, Poland, Cuba, CBS News.
Well, not really. They could plant whatever clues they want, but the other factors involved regarding the resources and intelligence info that were involved in making it rule out Cuba and CBS, and probably Poland. Were "clues" of that nature embedded into the code, people would simply suspect they were accessories, or victims of code theft, or something that would explain how theirs bits got into the stew when they obviously weren't the ones behind it.
No, actually, it couldn't very easily be. I suspect you don't know a lot about the subject. I thought the same thing until I heard more about it. Whatever organization created this had quite a bit of time, intelligence (as in information, not smarts, although they had that too), and resources, and they threw millions of dollars worth of it into making this.
2. Israelis speak Hebrew. The name Esther is written and pronounced as ESTER (transliteration, the 'E' is short, like in 'merry'). *Nobody* uses the word "Myrtus". Also see #1 above.
Myrtus is what they called it. That's not an easter egg, it's a name. And people frequently use words like that for names of things. Your argument is like claiming no-one in an English speaking country would name something "Veritas", since no one uses that word, they use "truth" instead. Alas, in the real world, that's precisely the reason people use the less common word when they're naming something. They deliberately pick archaic words, legendary names, or just less common words to avoid confusion.
Very good point. I would only criticize that I hate seeing "vs" used in the manner in the title here. Life is a chemical process, and ultimately, a geological process. Understanding that ultimately life is one of Earth's geological processes (and indeed one of the most important and influential ones in shaping our planet), the question should be phrased as "biological vs. abiological"; it's geological in either case.
This is where I complain about how the previous comment was moderated, and hijack the thread for an off-topic discussion of/.'s moderation system while making broad assertions about the obvious biases of all readers of this site.
I applaud that, and, as long as you don't get bent out of shape when someone else uses profanity, I think your choice is quite laudable. I respect your choice, as long as you respect mine, which is different.
... That said if you play any MMO game that is simple enough for kids to play, you will likely read or hear the worst language you have ever had the misfortune to be exposed to.
I've never seen any language in an MMO I wouldn't want my children exposed to. OTOH, I've seen racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, and worst of all, incredible levels of misogyny that I would want to see anyone exposed to.
Stupid thing to do these days, quitting a job. The only thing to do after that is starve to death when the money runs out or put a bullet through the head first. The economy the way it still is, it's either that or take whatever ass fucking the boss wants to give you.
Sorry, no. If your job environment is sufficiently stressful, you're more likely to put a bullet in your head if you don't quit than if you do. If you think otherwise, I'm sorry, I don't care what you've done, you've never actually had a shitty job.
This might be a nitpick, but isn't *all* solid matter shrapnel from supernovas?
Most of it comes from supernovas. Most of is, however, would not be considered "shrapnel". What's unique here is the formation and preservation of bits of fresh supernova condensate.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure there was that minor incident with the Hindenburg...
In which most of the passengers and crew survived, unlike most airplane crashes.
...but if we are dealing with a cargo ship servicing remote locations (which seems like the best application anyway) the risks to the humanity are much less.
If there's going to be a crash landing, I'd much rather be on board a hydrogen airship than a 747. It's far safer in a crash.
Yes, I know, hydrogen is flammable. I also know the wings of an aircraft are filled with flammable liquid that also often burns during a crash. History would suggest that the jet fuel is more likely to end up burning in an aircraft crash than the hydrogen in an airship (there were many airship crashes, but only one that went up in flames spectacularly).
Incidentally, the most fatal airship disaster was the crash of the USS Akron, which was filled with helium, but went down over the ocean during a bad storm.
...how do you connect the beams on the bottom to the lifting point on the top.
You don't. You connect steel cables or whatever to the beams on the bottom, connected on the other end to the airship, preferably not all at one point. You don't want the structure to tilt the way you would with a faster aircraft, since it isn't necessary and indeed would be dangerous if you're lifting from the bottom. You instead keep it vertical and move slowly, a task that airships are perfect for.
Then the intelligent person will re-read my message and note that I'd already mentioned that.
Actually, they will note that you didn't, but instead continued to assert that there needs to be some lifting point on the top. If you insist that must be the case, then that's the point you should be arguing. As it is, you look like you didn't even bother to read what you were replying to, or stop and think about what they were saying. You might want to try that sometime. At the very least, it will ensure you're arguing with someone rather than past them in apparent blissful ignorance of what they meant.
I know the pain. My employer provided me with a Dell laptop that had a 1600x1200 resolution once. A couple years later, they were buying new laptops for everyone and were very surprised when I simply refused to give mine up. They told me I could pick anything I wanted within reason (most employees had to pick from two approved choices), but I couldn't find anything half as good that didn't cost five times as much. Losing that laptop was the saddest part of quitting... *sigh*
OTOH, it looks to me as though this is more because HDTV based monitors are really cheap, not because the other monitors are expensive. I remember 1600x1200 monitors costing a lot of money back when they were considered high-end. Now you can get a 1920x1200 monitor for between $300 and $500 depending on size, and there are 2560x1440 monitors available for under $1000. What's really new is that you can get a 1920x1080 monitor for under $200.
Well, no, what's really new is that the top end hasn't come down, like it did on all my previous monitor purchases. I've always bought a monitor in the $550-$750 range. It's just, each time I've done so, it's been a substantial upgrade from my previous, years old monitor in terms of resolution. However, my current monitor is over four years old, but if I buy a replacement today, for the first time since I've started using computers in 1982, the monitor I buy today for that price will not be a substantial upgrade, indeed arguably it wouldn't be an upgrade at all, but a downgrade -- I'd gain horizontal but lose vertical pixels, which I value more highly. I understand it's got a lot better for people buying low-end monitors, but the real change is that the progression on the high end has halted, indeed arguably it's backslid some if you value vertical pixels.
Violence is also the best, by which I mean safest and most effective, response of the unjustly attacked. Now, when and if you can cobble up a world when thugs won't put a knife to the throat of my lady for her purse or her favors, you might have a point. Otherwise, you're just babbling.
Actually, he's quoting. Specifically, he's quoting Salvor Hardin, fictional mayor of Terminus in Isaac Asimov's Foundation.
As for the unjustly attacked, a violent response is usually ineffective. The people doing the attacking usually have violence on their side (e.g. the woman in question is unlikely to keep her purse or her favors, even if she fights back, as her attacker is going to be far more proficient at using violence as a weapon than she is), or are often unaffected by it (a group whose members are expected to die in their attacks anyhow are unsurprisingly not deterred if you kill some of their members -- "oh noes, that wasn't in the plan! Oh wait, it was... thank you for giving us exactly what we wanted." Yes, that's so effective.)
Violence can be a very effective tool. But it is rarely the safest and usually not the most effective.
Too be fair his initial claim that Britain is densely populated still holds given that Britain is about ten times as densely populated at the US.
Eh... that's a bit like saying Rhode Island is huge because it's about ten times larger than Malta.
Don't you think that if a state-sponsored agency wrote and deployed the virus, the QA/QC would remove ego-driven references?
I like to imagine governments would do all kinds of things that would make sense. Alas, I don't live in the imaginary world where they actually succeed at it all the time.
A basement hacker has an ego, a state-sponsored team of programmers have a task.
I'm gonna venture a guess that you've never worked for the government. XD Ego-driven behavior tends to be more common there than in corporations, at least in my experience.
Bits in code aren't like pollen or clay that get accidentally stuck to the culprit's clothing and shoes.
Actually, it kinda is, although you have it backwards -- what often happens is bits of info regarding the environment in which the code was developed get accidentally stuck in the code.
Whoever created this attack had the ability to effectively frame someone. They could've made it look like anyone – Israel, the US, Poland, Cuba, CBS News.
Well, not really. They could plant whatever clues they want, but the other factors involved regarding the resources and intelligence info that were involved in making it rule out Cuba and CBS, and probably Poland. Were "clues" of that nature embedded into the code, people would simply suspect they were accessories, or victims of code theft, or something that would explain how theirs bits got into the stew when they obviously weren't the ones behind it.
Could very easily be private individuals. ...
No, actually, it couldn't very easily be. I suspect you don't know a lot about the subject. I thought the same thing until I heard more about it. Whatever organization created this had quite a bit of time, intelligence (as in information, not smarts, although they had that too), and resources, and they threw millions of dollars worth of it into making this.
2. Israelis speak Hebrew. The name Esther is written and pronounced as ESTER (transliteration, the 'E' is short, like in 'merry'). *Nobody* uses the word "Myrtus". Also see #1 above.
Myrtus is what they called it. That's not an easter egg, it's a name. And people frequently use words like that for names of things. Your argument is like claiming no-one in an English speaking country would name something "Veritas", since no one uses that word, they use "truth" instead. Alas, in the real world, that's precisely the reason people use the less common word when they're naming something. They deliberately pick archaic words, legendary names, or just less common words to avoid confusion.
I use the password sync feature, but I also use my own server on the backend. I probably wouldn't use it if I'd ever used their servers.
Very good point. I would only criticize that I hate seeing "vs" used in the manner in the title here. Life is a chemical process, and ultimately, a geological process. Understanding that ultimately life is one of Earth's geological processes (and indeed one of the most important and influential ones in shaping our planet), the question should be phrased as "biological vs. abiological"; it's geological in either case.
This is where I complain about how the previous comment was moderated, and hijack the thread for an off-topic discussion of /.'s moderation system while making broad assertions about the obvious biases of all readers of this site.
I applaud that, and, as long as you don't get bent out of shape when someone else uses profanity, I think your choice is quite laudable. I respect your choice, as long as you respect mine, which is different.
... That said if you play any MMO game that is simple enough for kids to play, you will likely read or hear the worst language you have ever had the misfortune to be exposed to.
I've never seen any language in an MMO I wouldn't want my children exposed to. OTOH, I've seen racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, and worst of all, incredible levels of misogyny that I would want to see anyone exposed to.
What does low 4 digit mean?
That you are actually dead and your post was made by a highly evolved AI that you wrote many years ago.
Not necessarily highly evolved. Some of us were replaced by small shell scripts.
So, he stole the electronics industry of Earth and sold it to Earth, but he'll market it to Earth.
Sorry, did which specific region of the planet actually make much difference to what you were saying? How 19th century...
Well, duh, of course playing Grand Theft Auto is going to make someone a "better" driver. :p
"I can't stand self-centered people. They act like they're the center of the universe rather than like I'm the center of the universe. How dare they?"
She was a temp, however. Do they necessarily get the same deal?
Stupid thing to do these days, quitting a job. The only thing to do after that is starve to death when the money runs out or put a bullet through the head first. The economy the way it still is, it's either that or take whatever ass fucking the boss wants to give you.
Sorry, no. If your job environment is sufficiently stressful, you're more likely to put a bullet in your head if you don't quit than if you do. If you think otherwise, I'm sorry, I don't care what you've done, you've never actually had a shitty job.
That was Carlson's idea, not Nessman's
This just in: fossils can date themselves!
Its the Apple IIe all over again. The company got cocky, started abusing their market domination with laziness, and now they are in deep sh*t.
If "deep sh*t" is the condition that 99% of companies wish they were in, then yes, you are correct.
This might be a nitpick, but isn't *all* solid matter shrapnel from supernovas?
Most of it comes from supernovas. Most of is, however, would not be considered "shrapnel". What's unique here is the formation and preservation of bits of fresh supernova condensate.